Talk:Tuition fees in the United Kingdom

Comments
Needs cleanup and NPOV ;Bear 15:10, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * Somebody did it about a minute after I posted this -- that's really 'wikiwiki' fast ;Bear 15:08, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

81.174.247.96, I'm not sure that your edit is exactly correct. I have Scottish friends who studied in England, with me, and did have to pay the £1000 tuition fees, means-tested. Had they studied in Scotland these would have been waived in exchange for a £2000 graduate 'endowment' repayable over time. Thus the word "continue" to pay no fees is not quite right.

I'm struggling to work out what the new regime is: will Scottish students have to pay English fees if they study in England? What is the grad. endowment now going to be if they studfy in Scotland? What fees will English students studying in Scotland face?
 * -Splash 15:25, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I reverted that edit because it was just plain wrong. But now that I look around this article, it seems like a lot is wrong.  Basically, in Scotland top up fees don't exist.  The  Westminster legislation doesn't cover Scotland at all.  Since (2001?) tuition is set at £1000 whatever, but is paid for by Student Awards Agency for Scotland for students UK domiciled in Scotland, and EU (excluding the rest of Britain) students.  So a Northern Irish students pays, a student from the Republic doesn't.  Strange situation, I know.  There is a proposal to increase the fee level, in particular for medicine, but it won't change the above situation, merely increase the money involved.  I don't think there are any solid proposals to change the graduate endowment, although Nicol Stephen wants to.  Whether he will or can when he wins the Lib Dem leadership is another matter...
 * As for Scottish students elsewhere... the fact that they're Scottish matters nothing. They will pay the same fees as everybody else.  The Scottish Executive cannot legally pay their fees.
 * Anyone want to disagree with me on this? If not, I'll change the relevant bits of the article soon. Maccoinnich 16:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds right. Worth mentioning the graduate endowment and how that will/not change in 2006? - Splash 16:20, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Mmm, perhaps. But given that this is the top up fees article, it's perhaps not such a good idea to get into the details of funding in Scotland? Maccoinnich 15:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe you're right. But I think some (parenthetical) mention is worthwhile since the grad endowment is effectively the manifestation of tuition fees in Scotland (though granted not strictly the new 'top-up' fees). Plus, there is a section on "how it will work" so leaving it out altogether might leave it a little incomplete. While I'm here, I rather think this article needs a redirect (or something) to one called "Variable tuition fees (UK)" or somesuch, seeing as the new fees are not 'top-up' in either name or operation, even though they are often called such. I don't have Admin status, however. -Splash 15:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Strikes
Perhaps we should mention the fact that lecturers all over Britain are refusing to mark their students' work, including third-year dissertations? They're striking because their employers won't offer them a sorely-deserved pay rise, even though the money rolling in from next year from the top-up fees will increase every University's income by at least £3,000 per student. Or at least mention it somewhere...I can't find it on Wiki. Lady BlahDeBlah 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

POV issue
This article currently lacks balance and is too weighted towards criticizing top-up fees. Even the "Arguments for and against" section comes across as stating the government's position (or straw man arguments such as the supposed "I don't want to pay tax so other people will be better off" view, so presenting fees supporters as ignorant/selfish) and then proceeding to knock these down, sometimes using simplified or exaggerated terms e.g. only "rich" people will be able to afford university. Article needs a more balanced, sourced and serious-minded discussion Bwithh 19:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

yea that thing at the end was kind of silly, so i got rid of it. the rest looks decent enough Towel401 20:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Courses
Are fees the same for each course within a given institution or do they vary between departments? e.g. are an English student and a Mechanical Engineering student at the same university going to pay the same fees? this hasn't been made clear. --Black Butterfly 14:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

EU Students
EU students do not pay lower tuition fees than UK students based on the country they come from. The classification is Home/EU and is the same amount for both the UK students and the EU students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.38 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of date
The 2006-2007 academic year is in the past, and top-up fees are now a reality. The "How the fees will work" section should be changed to reflect this (i.e. past tense to refer to the old system, present tense for the new). Though I don't fully understand how they work (I was only subject to the new fees system in my final year) so I'll leave it to someone else. Hairy Dude (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is a Top-Up Fee?
I've read the entire article several times and I still can't figure out what a top-up fee is. The article explains that tuition now costs GBP 3000, but does not explain what part of this is a top-up fee or why students care if they can get a loan for the entire amount. Could you make this article explain the concept at hand, rather than just talking about the issues surrounding it? 24.98.65.137 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
I'm a National Council member of the Campaign for an English Parliament, this sort of thing is bread and butter to our campaign and top-up fees are a subject of particular interest to us. In England, all English and non-EU students will pay the fees. In Scotland, all English, Welsh, Northern Irish and non-EU students will pay the fees. In Wales, all English, Scottish, Northern Irish and non-EU students will pay the fees. In NI, all English, Scottish, Welsh and non-EU students will pay the fees. The Bill introducing the fees was voted against by a majority of MPs elected in England - the only UK home nation the Bill applied to - but was passed using the votes of Labour MPs elected in Scotland operating under the party whip. Labour members of the Scottish Parliament then voted against the same fees for Scotland. The easiest way to "clean up" the article is to move the criticism to the "Controversy" section, which can quite justifiably comprise half the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkotsane (talk • contribs) 06:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Bill Rammell's arguments in "Arguments for and Against"
"He elsewhere provided a different lower estimate stating that to replace the income from top-up fees, estimated by the government to be £1.4 billion [7], would necessitate a requirement "to put up income tax by 3%" [8]. The amount raised by the UK in income tax in 2003-2004 was £120 billion [9]."

The reference for the "Government" estimate of £1.4 billion is http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=181694&sectioncode=26 - it's very unclear from this reference whether this figure was sourced from the government, Universities UK, or derived by the Times.

More importantly, that figure refers to the extra income that universities receive as a result of this bill, not the savings to the government of enacting the bill versus not. The act did more than simply allow universities to charge higher fees, so it's likely that the government's calculations would have found more savings than 1.4 billion. A recent Guardian article claims the Lib Dems' recently abandoned pledge to drop tuition fees would have cost £12 billion. I assume this figure was calculated by the Lib Dems, and you would expect them to have downplayed the cost...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/22/nick-clegg-tuition-fees-conference

The section I'm questioning then goes on to make a strangely passive-aggressively worded suggestion that the 3% figure is wrong because 1.4 billion is less that 3% of 120 billion. I think I've shown the savings to the government can't be assumed to be 1.4 billion based on the cited references.

I do agree that the two separate cited assertions by Rammell that the income tax burden would be variously "3 or 4p on the basic rate" or "to put up income tax by 3%" are confusing. My back-of-envelope calculation of 3 or 4p on a basic rate of 20p makes that a 15% increase. For this reason it's perhaps worth keeping the mention, but I expect it's simply that one of his claims was a mistake in a live interview (probably the higher one).

More generally the section seems too weighted to arguments against, and doesn't fairly represent the arguments for. The cited article by Bill Rammell seems to be to give two significant arguments before even mentioning income tax:

"We're doing all of this, as well as significantly increasing government funding for students, because we know more young people need higher education. Research suggests that of the total jobs expected to be filled by 2012, around half will be in occupations likely to demand graduates. Many of our international competitors are already educating more young people to degree level than we are. But it is not just about the economy. I want a broader group to be able to enjoy the benefits that going to university brings. As the first person in my family to go to university, I know that doing so transformed my life chances. I want that opportunity for as many people as possible." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/oct/04/highereducation.uk)

Also, the THE article already cited has a quote from "Michael Sterling, chair of the Russell Group and vice-chancellor of Birmingham University":

"If the bill fails, the UK would be consigned to a second-rate system for the rest of the decade."

So, the cited sources explain the arguments for, but the article doesn't (well it hints at some of these, but I think it's not very fair). Particularly:


 * The UK University system was badly underfunded, and no alternative source of income was available/practical. (THE / Universities UK)
 * In the opinion of at least one vice chancellor (who is a representative of several), failure of the bill would have made the UK university system "second rate".
 * Failure to find funding would be damaging to the UK economy, and the UK was falling behind it's competitors in this respect. (Bill Rammell)
 * Labour wished to broaden access to university education for working class people / those who had attended state schools / those who did not have a "family history" of going to university (Bill Rammell).

The last point is obviously debated, but nonetheless Labour definitely made the argument that they were broadening access, and the bill does things other than increase the cap for tuition fees (e.g. remove all up-front tuition payments, increase the availability of means-tested grants).

86.2.191.239 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Logical fails in arguments for and against
I've already written one big section about this section, regarding how it represents third parties, but I thought I'd put this stuff in a new talk section.

The "Arguments for and against" section struggles with logic a bit. First glaring error:

Since each institution will be able to vary the fee they charge and be able to keep the revenue raised this way, the Government claims this means that over-subscribed and popular universities can charge more money, while institutions that may be struggling can charge less to attract more students. Supporters say that the abolition of upfront fees should encourage more young people to apply. However, due to the current funding crisis in UK higher education, it is likely that many institutions will be forced to charge the full fee, removing this incentive.

Umm, sorry? Upfront fees are still abolished, whether or not different universities all charge the same or different fees.

The statement about all universities charging the maximum rate seems to be countering (more reasonably) the opening sentence about lower fees being used to attract students, but it doesn't read like that.

Finally, at the end of the section:

Tony Blair did not specfiy which general tax-based schemes for funding universities would increase the tax burden on the lower paid and did not suggest that he felt it was unfair for the lower paid to contribute to, for example, free NHS health care for the more wealthy.

Again, WTF. Firstly, it's blatantly the author's own argument, rather than cited, because no newspaper would publish such a rubbish argument. The NHS provides services equally to the poor and wealthy (possibly more to the poor who cannot afford private alternatives). Since the tax system in the UK is designed to get more revenue from those with higher incomes, the NHS is essentially redistributive - it redistributes money from the wealthy to the poor.

On the other hand, the system of free university education was mostly being utilised by the wealthy, and the poor were not attending university (generally). Therefore it is generally redistributing money from the poor to the wealthy, no matter how progressive the tax system is. It's clearly a very different matter to the NHS. When UK young people leave school at 16 or 18, they were going predominantly going down one of two paths:
 * Get a job (and start paying taxes)
 * Go to university (and start receiving handouts from other people's taxes)

Of course, there was some crossover, but generally if you were from a lower-income household you went down the first path, and from a higher income household you went down the second path. This is more or less the argument that Tony Blair was making.

Here's an elaboration on it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/theres-nothing-elitist-about-topup-fees-580839.html

86.2.191.239 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

response to Misrepresentation of Bill Rammell's arguments in "Arguments for and Against"
The £1.4 billion estimate of yearly top-up fee income IS that of the governments. It is originally derived from a Nov 2003 parliamentary statement referred to here http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/tuition_fees.pdf. Although the Guardian does not make this clear the £12 billion apparently refers to the loss to the government over an entire parliament http://www.politics.co.uk/news/conferences/clegg-faces-hostile-tuition-fees-reception-$1328515.htm. Given that top up fees increase the £1,000/per year to approximately £3,000 year then a total yearly income from top-up fees would be £2.1 bn. This is £10.5 bn over a full parliamentary term and given that the £10.5 bn is based on 2003 figures and the level of tuition fee has increased since then I think the two figures agree fairly closely.

So yes the £1.4 bn is correct and the 3% claim by Rammell is therefore wrong. The "3p or 4p" claim is even more wrong. If it was made in error then he has had 4 years to set the record straight. I have emailed him on this issue and was deflected to the DFES who, after a long delay, informed me the reference to an increase in "standard tax" was referring to "a special tax, levied on all graduates (a graduate tax)." So there you are ! "standard" means "special" in the New Labour dictionary.

Incidently the Rammell obsession with the notion of "3p or 4p on the standard rate of income tax" has an even longer history. I first located it back in 1998 where, in parliament, Rammell claimed that "to restore student grants to the 1979 level ... would cost the equivalent of 3p or 4p on the standard rate of income tax" http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1998/jun/08/new-arrangements-for-giving-financial. This is obviously a very different claim to that used for top-up fees. But the similiar wording almost makes me think thats is a standard phrase used to present a tax argument in favour of any education policy. Rammell also used the phrase in 2000 when he wrote an article arguing against top-up fees: "To rectify the crisis our universities faced when Labour came to power would have cost 3p or 4p on the standard rate of income tax" http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=150500&sectioncode=26. I know ! I should get out more ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.18.165 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

response to logical fallacies
So Tony Blair didn't explain why the poorly paid hospital worker would be worse off under a tax-based funding scheme replacement for university fees. I appreciate your well argued contribution but I'm afraid all you've done is convince me further than a tax based funding scheme, whereby the better off pay more, would be "redistributive" as you note the NHS is. Who are these "wealthy" students ? Students usually don't earn an income. OK their parents may be wealthy but they are under no obligation to fund their offspring. Top-up fees are certainly not paid by these wealthy parents but by graduates even when earning as little as £15k. And many graduates so not earn a high salary even when doing vital and valuable jobs. Ironically given Blair's remark on "poorly paid hospital workers" hospital lab workers (MLSOs) are a case in point. In my opinion the main rationale for the government introducing top-up fees is that most of those affected do not yet have the vote - really cynical.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tuition which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename page to "Tuition fees (UK)"?
Perhaps we should rename this page to "Tuition fees (UK)", as I'm sure there are other countries where students pay tuition fees. -- Cabalamat (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, "Tuition fees" should be a redirect to Tuition. It is a general term that does not necessarily refer to fees in the UK. I am from Australia and spent quite some time trying to find general information about tuition fees worldwide but could only find this page, until I discovered the article called "Tuition". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.63 (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible to me, if the term "tuition fees" is used in other countries to refer to their own systems. Or at least put a note at the top of this article sending people to tuition if they want a non-uk-specific explanation.--Hermajesty21 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, have just done a lot of tidying up and it's focus is all about the UK Notjamesbond (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Has been moved Notjamesbond (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, it looks good now! If you're not sick of the topic, could you be persuaded to tackle Browne Review next? I've been adding information to update it but it's still a bit of a mess.--Hermajesty21 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Might give it a go later, am working on a section for the Browne Review within the tuition fees bit, getting there slowly bt surely Notjamesbond (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Background?
Hi notjamesbond,

I've tried to make some of the prose a bit clearer and more concise as the good article reviews suggests. I think a background section at the beginning stating how higher education used to be funded before tuition fees (I guess it all used to be government funded?), and the massive increase in student numbers, would be good - younger and foreign readers won't automatically know this background.

The article's improved massively since you started :)--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC) (formerly Hermajesty21)


 * Hi, thanks for working on it, it's becoming a bit of a behemoth :p I'll try and look into a background section at some point in the future, it would probably serve the article well.  Thanks for the comments :)  Notjamesbond (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some sources that look quite useful for a potential background section: Data on student numbers up to 1998, and a historical overview of university funding in the 20th century--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename
Hi, I was thinking that it may be appropriate for this article to be called 'Tuition fees in the United Kingdom' rather than 'Tuition fees (UK)'. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Notjamesbond (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 21:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay as no other thoughts have taken this as a consensus and have renamed Notjamesbond (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs expansion: foreign students
This article seriously needs to mention the fees payable by foreign students studying in the UK, or at least to clarify that the article does not refer to them. If I weren't so busy with exams I'd do it myself, but I am, so I can't :( Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 21:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jarry1250 there is a brief mention which forms part of one of the notes, it's note six and has some mention of the costs payable by non-EU students if that helps Notjamesbond (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the scope of the article, I would think that, IHO, one footnote is insufficient. After all, at the very least (i.e. if one took the article as referring solely to those fees payable by EU nationals), the fact that foreign students de facto subsidise EU students must get a decent explanation. And arguably, since the title of the article seems to include the rates payable by foreign students, I think a level-2 heading is warranted. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 12:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Postgraduate certificate
I'm a bit confused by the first sentence of this article. I know that tuition fees, in the form discussed in the rest of the article, apply to undergraduate students, but I thought that the fees for postgraduate students were different. I noticed that the sentence used to say PGCE students (long ago!) then was changed to post graduate certificate students, and now has been changed to postgraduate certificate students. Could anyone clarify?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about changing to 'Tuition fees are charges levied by universities in the United Kingdom which cover the cost of tuition for students studying in those universities.'? Just make it a bit more generic?  Am unable to clarify the point and this is the only place it is mentioned.   What do you think? Notjamesbond (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Education Secretary: universities will be allowed to charge students from the rest of the UK (RUK) up to £36,000 for a four-year degree
Lindsay McIntosh, The Times, 13 August 2011 --Mais oui! (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Scottish Education Secretary, Michael Russell, has announced that institutions will be allowed to charge students from the rest of the UK (RUK) up to £36,000 for a four-year degree — a move intended partly to stop “fee refugees”. The new scheme will start operating from 2012-13 if legislation is passed at Holyrood in the new term. At present universities are given public money through the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) to pay for RUK students. However, once the tuition fees are introduced, the council intends to reallocate that cash. According to briefing papers sent to principals, some of the money will be used to drive up standards in science — an area which the Scottish government has long been championing as a way out of the economic downturn. The SFC paper, which is still out for consultation, states: “It is intended to create a pool of funding for strategically important subjects. In particular, to allow institutions to maintain their capability to provide science, engineering, veterinary science and creative arts provision.” Although the SFC is ostensibly independent from the Scottish government, it has responsibility for distributing central funding and receives guidance letters from the Education Secretary. The SFC also intends to steer some of the freed-up cash towards institutions offering medicine and dentistry, courses that are expensive to run. The rest of the extra cash will be reallocated across all universities, although the SFC has yet to determine the formula by which this will be calculated. According to the briefing paper, there would be an extra £25 million available in the first year of fees being introduced for new RUK students. By the time every RUK student is paying them, the annual income would be about £85 million. Higher education sources have welcomed the proposals."

BBC report: "Scotland's uni funding system faces legal challenge"
BBC News Scotland, 21 August 2011 See also: --Mais oui! (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "'A leading human rights lawyer is planning a legal challenge to Scotland's university funding system. Phil Shiner said the policy breaches the European Convention on Human Rights by charging students from other parts of the UK to study north of the border. Scottish students studying at home do not pay tuition fees while some 22,000 English students in Scotland do. The Scottish government has defended its policy and says it is acting within the law... Mr Shiner has now turned his attention to the fees structure in Scotland where English students pay between £1,820 and £2,895 per year, which will increase to up to £9,000 from next year. He believes that ministers in Scotland have 'misinterpreted the law'. Mr Shiner said the Scottish fees system contravened the European Convention on Human Rights and could also be in breach of Britain's Equality Act. But a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: 'We are clear that the proposals set out are lawful. 'Tuition fee arrangements are based on 'ordinary domicile' not nationality.''"
 * Lawyers challenge fees 'apartheid' that sees English students forced to pay while Scots go free
 * Scots plan to charge English students fees 'lawful'

This racist policy by the SNP is unsustainable without all the money Scotland gets from England. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC))


 * Please do not make party political points on this talk page. If you have a constructive contribution to make, please make it. By the way, you should realise that whether fees are payable is based on 'ordinary residence' rather than race/nationality, and that the most recent government figures for 2009/10 revealed that Scotland contributed 9.4% of UK taxes but received just 9.3% of public expenditure.. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that it was not the SNP which created this situation. It was the Labour Party (both Westminster and Holrood) and their Lib Dem coalition partners in Holyrood pre-2007.


 * If you persist in calling a mainstream, governing political party "racist" you will soon find yourself blocked, for violating WP:BLP, among other policies. So calm down dear. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It was Labour that created the situation by establishing a parliament for Scotland, but not for England. The SNP is a racist anti-semitic party, and its policy on English students is extremely racist. The Welsh and Northern Irish students are being subsidised - the English students are not. As soon as England stops giving Scotland £20 billion a year there will be no free places for anyone. England needs a parliament now. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.24.95 (talk)

Timeline is misleading
Rather than merely change the timeline, I thought I would point out that it is misleading as it stands. While it is true that there was a UK Labour government in 2008, the timeline may have the effect of giving the impression that the abolition of the graduate endowment in Scotland was linked to the Labour government - there was actually a SNP government in Scotland at the time. Any ideas how this could be fixed, other than be removing the detail and making this timeline about England? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Those in favour of tuition fee changes.
Hi Wikipedia folk, I've not edited a page before so I'm entirely unsure to whether this would be suitable. Would there be any reason to include this support from students themselves into this article? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/08/tuition-fees-student-support 92.26.35.46 (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Tbyrne

Top Up Fees Vs Tuition Fees - Difference in Meaning
Wikipedia is supposed to be a purely factual source of information. What should be discussed here is what the terms actually mean in themselves not people's opinions of the rights and wrong of their introduction. Any Political views should be restricted to the meta level, i.e. they should be about the main Party Political viewpoints and who holds them, not the actual political arguments themselves.

Perhaps the majority of people accessing this entry are looking for information, such as why have "the fees" [for English University Undergraduate Degrees] increased almost three fold.

University Tuition Fee means the whole fee payable for studying/reading for a Degree. Until the academic year 1998 to 1999 only foreign non-EU students had to pay Tuition Fees for Undergraduate Degrees because the Higher Education Funding Councils for England (including Wales and Northern Ireland) and Scotland (HEFCE & HEFCS) used to pay them on the Home and EU students' behalf. Because the universities had become underfunded by this arrangement due to the Government of the day determining that it could not pay anything more, the universities were given the right to charge an additional £1000 pounds per student with this fee coming from the student themselves. This measure was introduced across the whole of the UK in September 1998. Although the fee was index linked so that it would increase a little each year, by 2006 it became obvious that universities were still underfunded and in the academic year starting September 2006, Universities were allowed to increase this additional fee up to £3000 (which most English universities did). These were now called University Top-Up Fees because they topped-up what was paid on the students' behalf by the Government through HEFCE. The point is that they never were the full University Tuition Fee.

The real tuition fee varies according to the type of degree, and for scientific, technical, engineering and medical undergraduate degrees, where there is a great amount of laboratory/hospital/workshop work that has to be supervised, this can be in the teens of thousands; whereas for an undergraduate social science degree the fee may be less than half of that.

Due to the continuing financial crisis, the Government determined that it could no longer afford to fund most undergraduate degrees and decided that it would only fund those degrees where graduates were in short supply and where the full course tuition fees would make the course prohibitive to home students. These degrees are the same scientific, technical, engineering and medical undergraduate degrees mentioned above. Thus from this academic year, starting September 2012 onwards, universities have been given the right to charge up to £9,000 per student to reflect the fact that in most cases the Government via HEFCE will not be paying the universities their customary funding. With the exception of the degrees mentioned above, the fee no longer tops-up anything and has now thus become the full tuition fee for the course. Hence the name University Tuition Fee. The universities are receiving no more money; they are merely charging the student for what the Government no longer pays.

For example if we take a typical undergraduate social science degree such as Business, the Government via HEFCE used to pay universities around £4,000 to £5,000 per student and, via the student loans system, the students used to pay a Top-Up fee of about £3,500. Thus the university used to derive around £8,500 per student for course tuition. Due to the lack of Government funding, most universities are having to charge between £8,000 and £9,000 pa per student because this is the actual cost of tuition for the course. The Tuition Fee of up to £9,000 per student per year is now the actual total cost of the tuition for most courses. This is also the figure that non-EU overseas students have been paying for some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.66.59 (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tuition fees in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528080411/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7119226.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7119226.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Reorganisation of the article
Hey there. It seems to me that most of this article is about the history of tuition fees in the UK, rather than the current system- I think the lead should be shortened, a new section added outlining the current system and then the immediate future, followed by a lengthy section on the history of the tuition fees. It might also be best if we had a unified criticism section at the bottom, rather than mini sections for every step in the history. Pages like Browne Review already have ample criticism on their own articles, so only a brief outline is really required here. Any thoughts? --ERAGON (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely agree it needs a reorganisation - but I would suggest splitting off history of tuition fees into a new article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to rename this article 'Introduction of Tuition Fees in the United Kingdom' and then move all other developments after 1999 into separate articles for England, Scotland and Wales. At the moment, Tuition fees in Scotland redirects here - I know as I created the redirect a number of years ago - but I could see more sense in having separate articles for the development of tuition fees in each country together with a much shortened article here to cover their introduction. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My structure proposition

 * 1) Lead, overview.
 * 2) Current System
 * 3) in England
 * 4) in Wales
 * 5) in Northern Ireland
 * 6) in Scotland
 * 7) History (short overview, bulk of history stuff moved to a new article)
 * 8) Criticism (of the current system)
 * 9) References

Criticism of pre-2010 laws should be moved to articles on those specific laws and bills, although the odd one-line is fine for our historical section where apropriate. I'd be happy to go ahead and set that out in the article, unless there are any objections? --ERAGON (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am happy with that, thanks in advance! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except 'Current System in devolved parts of UK' is not an afterthought/subsection of 'Current System' - what is needed is a 'Current Systems' which has 4 subsections with one for each country. Also, the 'Criticisms' have to be subsections of each country's 'current system' Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea Fishie, I'll do as suggested about splitting it up. Ammended the proposition above, but I may merge together some of the four if any two are overridingly similar. As for criticism, a few lines in each section should suffice, but I still think there should be a general section on the bottom for common aspects- British criticism of the idea of fees in general, any laws that cover all four parts of the UK, and the suggested alternatives. --ERAGON (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking my points on board. However, since each country has a different system, the criticisms will be specific to each. Also, there are now no laws that apply to all four countries as each has passed news laws that supercede the original that introduced fees. As for the lead, I think the current first paragraph is good but should be followed by a second that summarises the situation as it is in each country today. Nothing else - other info currently in the lead can be moved elsewhere. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Restructure Complete
There we go. As discussed, the bulk of the history section has now been split to Timeline of Tuition Fees in the United Kingdom, with some rough structure now down for the current system and a summary of the history written. If someone who understands the non-England laws better than I could go in and add to the current systems and criticism for those countries, that would be great. --ERAGON (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Needs update
Not sure this is broad anymore. It needs an update for tuition fee changes in 2015, and for EU students post-Brexit, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Main lead gallery
The gallery is way too cluttered and is totally excessive. It should be removed, with maybe two pictures left for the history section. The images can all be moved to the Timeline of tuition fees in the United Kingdom page. Monsterhighfanuk (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree. The gallery is very well contained and doesn't harm the readability of the article. It presents absolutely no negative impact upon the page and can be ignored by the reader if they so wish. Having this here only endeavours to improve the page, not subtract from it. Helper201 (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

An irrelevant selection of images
@Helper201 in the past few days has adamantly insisted, without much reason, on keeping a vast gallery of images of protests against tuition fees. I have reverted those edits on the basis that such images do not belong in the lede; besides the criticism above of the gallery being cluttered (like really, really cluttered, as if someone was trying to assert the causes of the movement in this article), the gallery is itself of protests, which are only tangential to the topic of tuition fees. They would undeniably fit an article on "Tuition fee protests in the UK", or even a section on "protests". Zilch-nada (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, no consensus has been reached here, so why did you revert again? You have no consensus to do this. This argument also sounds very much like I just don't like it. Opposition to tuition fees is a topic which is regularly present in multiple forms (including, but not limited to demonstration and protest) since the inception of such fees, regularly receiving criticism in areas such as mainstream media when the topic is raised. The images help articulate both the scale and opinion of a large number of people that have amassed large and notable demonstrations and received much mainstream media coverage from reliable sources. There is no article for "Tuition fee protests in the UK". There is no better place in this article for the images than in the lead. I have neatly boxed them into a singular box to specifically avoid clutter. Personal preferences on how the page looks don't get to unilaterally terminate what can be removed. Helper201 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is about tuition fees, not protests. You are the only one standing in the way of my edits; it is clear that we will need further editors' opinions to resolve this matter. It's hardly a strong consensus for keeping the images; the images were added a month ago by yourself, reverted by @Monsterhighfanuk (although a later image was added.) You are the only one defending the very young and weak "consensus" - a consensus which consists entirely of you, and the fact that it has been around for a mere month. Zilch-nada (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * And the protests are specifically in regards to tuition fees in the United Kingdom. There is no other article where the images would be more relevant. You haven't provided a reason as to why you reverted and removed these photos again before getting a consensus or even waiting for a conclusion to this discussion. The other person of which you mentioned you'll find if you view their account has been banned, as they were found to be a sock puppet. You are the only one trying to remove this information. The images had met no resistance (save the one sock puppet) in over a month, which in Wikipedia editing time is quite a while. When something is established like this you should be waiting until a consensus or a conclusion is formed here before unilaterally removing the content in question. Helper201 (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "There is no other article where the images would be more relevant."
 * How on Earth is that a good argument? Just because there are some images from Wiki Commons does not mean you have to use them. If there was a well-sourced section on protests in the first place, then I would be open to some images. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I've already reasoned why the images are relevant prior to that, I was simply addressing your specific point about placing them in this article specifically in the sentence you quoted above. Helper201 (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We're clearly not going to agree here. A strong consensus comes from (or should come from) opinions of more editors in this talk. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)